Canada holds off on signing arms treaty

Posted by David Hardy · 26 September 2013 09:38 AM

It wants to study its effect on Canadian gun owners. That seems to be more than the U.S. did before signing. Of course, an unratified treaty isn't legally binding, or empowering, and I rather doubt this is going to be ratified. I also doubt that the major arms exporters to civil wars, genocidal governments, etc., are going to sign on, let alone follow it. When was the last time you saw their followers toting M-16s? AKs, yes, M-16s no.

The Constitution always places the treaty making power in the hands of the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President cannot redelegate that which was delegated to him from the sovereign People. Delegata potestes non potest delegari.

So Kerry can't do nuthin even if BO says do it. And any and every treaty ever signed by a rep of the Pres is also invalid. AND no treaty can be made except on the Authority of the United States and that authority is nothing more than the delegated powers found in the Constitution. Thus a treaty which would infringe on the right to keep and bear arms would not be within the authority of the United States to sign.

Okay not a lawyer or even close - I have read somewhere that supposedly once it is signed a later president can present it to a more sympathetic congress to get it passed. Can that happen or is there some death it dies never to be resurrected?

Just as with any legislation, treaties can be presented for advice and consent as often as those in power want. So even though a current senate says no, a later senate can approve.

AND most folks think it takes 2/3 of the senate to approve a treaty but that is not the case. The actual text of the Constitution says 2/3 of those present. Theoretically 3 senators could be present and 2 approve to meet the Constitutional requirements of 2/3 of those present to allow a treaty.